Box Turtle Bulletin

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day two synopsis

Today’s testimony consisted of two witnesses (thanks again to Courage Campaign):

Professor Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, continued her testimony about the meaning of marriage. She explained how marriage evolved from the government directing gender roles as we moved from an agrarian society.

Cross-witness sought to get Cott to own the statements of other marriage supporters so as to get her defending ideas other than her own but she wasn’t having it. Opposing counsel tried to get her to make predictions, she didn’t.

Then opposing counsel sought to show that marriage was actually Christian doctrine filtered through marriage law. (I can think of a few reasons why he really wouldn’t want to go there, one being that Olson/Boies can put the leaders of several denominations on the stand to talk about Christian doctrine).

In redirect, Cott explains that same-sex marriage was not likely to lead to polygamy because the central theme to marriage is consent and the central theme to polygamy is despotism. (Interestingly, if “children” is the sole purpose of marriage, then polygamy could be a next step – or, rather, a step back to tradition).

In the afternoon, Terri Stewart questioned Dr. George Chauncey, an expert in LGBT studies. Dr. Chauncey gave a lengthy discussion about discrimination and oppression of gay people in America.

Dr. Chauncey showed how the themes of Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaigns in the 70’s were successfully carried into the 80’s and 90’s and are the central themes of Proposition 8. He sees them as part of a continuum.

Stewart: Do you believe Prop. 8 ads perpetuate the stereotypes of the history you describe?

Chauncey: I think they do, but they are more polite than the Anita Bryant ads. Society has changed such that what you can say in polite society is different, but most striking is the image of the little girl who comes in to tell her mom that she can marry a princess. There\’s a strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people will lead a generation of young people to become gay.

Cross examination tries to paint Chauncey as “an advocate”. They tried that with Cott. I’m not sure what’s going on there as I think it’s clear that all witnesses on all sides are probably going to be advocates for their position. Certainly Blankenhorn is.

Blankenhorn: A Brief Summary

It appears that David Blankenhorn will be the primary witness for the defense of Proposition 8. ProtectMarriage.com’s attorney, Chuck Cooper, has said that Blankenhorn will

• show that the preponderance of historical and social leaders agree that this the naturally procreation sexual act that is protected, that it\’s pro-child
• show that if gay marriage is legal, it will lead to higher divorce rates and lower rates of marriage

So let’s look to some of Blankenhorn’s previous writings to get a sense of what he believes. I make no pretense that this is a comprehensive review of Blankenhorn’s positions, or that I have insight to his thinking or his testimony, but it can give us a bit of perspective and perhaps an inkling of what he will say.

First, let’s look at his credentials.

In 1977, he graduated magna cum laude in social studies from Harvard, where he was president of Phillips Brooks House, the campus community service center, and the recipient of a John Knox Fellowship. In 1978, he was awarded an M.A. with distinction in comparative social history from the University of Warwick in Coventry, England.

In 1994, Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, serving as that organization’s founding chairman. In 1992, he was appointed by President Bush to serve on the National Commission on America\’s Urban Families.

It was through his interest in the fatherhood movement – and his belief that families were best served when the father of the children was active in the family – that he began to advocate for heterosexual only marriage.

So he “spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage” before going on the lecture circuit as an expert on the subject. (In contrast, Nancy Cott spent about a decade studying marriage in America before writing her book).

Blankenhorn’s conclusions were rather similar to his starting points: that marriage is contrived primarily to tie parents to their children. In an LA Times op-ed, he stated:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

Blankenhorn is well educated and articulate. We should expect poise and confidence in his testimorny.

It would seem based on his writing and on the statements of Chuck Cooper that Blankenhorn is going to argue that society benefits by privileging and providing benefits for institutions that create a natural parental unit. However, as I see it, he has a number of challenges to hurdle:

1. Blankenhorn is not opposed to recognition of same-sex relationships. In February 2009 he argued in the NY Times, with Jonathan Rauch, for the federal recognition of civil unions provided that religious objection was protected.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage.

Unlike many die-hard anti-gay activists, he does not argue that children are endangered by having same-sex parents. Indeed, if so then why would he argue for federal recognition of same-sex relationships? So all he can argue is that there is tremendous importance in the word “marriage” but not necessarily in the structure.

In other words, Blankenhorn does not see a benefit to refusing to recognize same-sex relationships. This leaves him in the position of arguing the distinctions between all the rights, and the name. His only consistent argument must be that same-sex couples should have rights but social disadvantage, a second-class recognition, a lesser status.

This could help establish the claims of Olson and Boies that the supporters of Proposition 8 are primarily seeking to enforce distinct social classes of relationships based on their content, a caste system.

2. Blankenhorn’s insistence that the primary purpose of marriage is to tie a child to its natural parents is not the same thing as the only purpose of marriage. Society has allowed many marriages for which that primary purpose is not applicable, elderly or infertile or intentionally childless couples. Blankenhorn will have to explain how these couples meet the standard of the primary purpose or admit that there are secondary purposes.

Blankenhorn must then argue that the secondary purposes for marriage – those which make marriage appropriate and worth social approval for those childless couples – are present in heterosexual sterile couples but absent in same-sex couples. This will not, I believe, be easy to accomplish.

3. Blankenhorn will also have to explain the exceptions that society and the law have made for heterosexual couples whose marriages do not meet the standard of tying natural parents to their natural children. Why, if a state recognizes divorce, second and third marriages, and adoption, then what is it about same-sex couples that more-greatly separates children from their natural parents?

He may argue that opposite sex couples, even those who are not natural parents, are more successful at raising children than same-sex couples and thus deserve preference and privilege. But, unlike in media campaigns, he’ll have to explain the evidence which does not agree with that assertion.

4. Blankenhorn’s assumptions about marriage ignore history – fairly recent history.

Anyone who has done genealogical research knows that the nuclear family was rare until recently. I’ve traced my family back in this country for four hundred years and, at least in my lineage, a family of full brothers and sisters raised by their natural parents was an exception rather than the rule. Early death was not infrequent and second and third marriages with various step children was a common occurrence.

5. And finally, Blankenhorn’s assumptions about marriage ignore liturgy. Consider the vows made at a wedding. They generally go something like this (from the Anglican Church):

I take you to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part; according to God’s holy law.

In the presence of God I make this vow.

and

I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage. With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In a Catholic wedding the priest will also ask the couple if they will “accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church”. But this is not the focus of the wedding. And I’ve never been at a protestant wedding in which the participants vowed to have children, to raise children, or even to consider the possibility.

It’s possible to argue that Catholic marriages are solely about children, but that is to argue that the State should establish religion.

I don’t know in what context that Blankenhorn will discuss the marriage rates of foreign nations, something that I think may be a difficult subject for him to tackle. As best I can tell, Blankenhorn is not particularly authoritative about analysis of recent European marriage trends, though I may be mistaken.

He will also tell us what “everyone thinks” about marriage. Except, of course, those who do not.

I’m beginning to wonder if Blankenhorn’s sole purpose for inclusion in the case is to say, “see, even liberals who don’t hate gays oppose gay marriage.” I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: first day highlights

As the trial is not, at present, available on YouTube, I am relying on the excellent liveblogging provided by the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs. Here is how the first day went:

Ted Olson gave his opening remarks, laying out his case.

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:

First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

Then Therese “Terry” Stewart, counsel for San Francisco, asserted that Proposition 8 was economically disadvantageous to the city. He argued that perceptions of second class citizenship lead to hate crimes, a cost that can be avoided.

Charles Cooper, counsel for Protect Marriage is going to show that marriage is about children in a nuclear family, that gay people are powerful and not disadvantaged and that gay marriage would lead to higher divorce rates and lower rates of marriage. It appears that he will be relying predominantly on the testimony of David Blankenhorn.

The supporters of Proposition 8 seem to have argued the peculiar idea that none of the ads they ran encouraging voters to vote for the proposition should be admissible. The judge isn’t buying it, but the ridiculous Gathering Storm ad was not allowed because it was produced after the election.

The proponents, Jeffrey Zarrillo, Paul Katami, Kristin Perry, and Sandra Stier testify about how not being allowed to marry disadvantages their lives and makes them feel unequal. Opposing counsel chooses not to cross examine the women.

Finally Professor Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation provides testimony about how marriage is not just a contract between two people but a contract between individuals and their state. She discusses the history of marriage in our nation, how it is unique from other nations, and how it was the definitive indication of a free people.

From the liveblog

The ability to marry, to say I do, is a civil right. It demonstrates liberty. This can be seen in American history when slaves could not legally marry. As unfreed persons, they could not consent. They lacked that very basic liberty of person to say I do which meant they were taking on the state\’s obligates and vice versa. A slave could not take on that set of obligations because they were not free.

When slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. IT was not trivial to them by any means. They saw the ability to replace the informal unions with legalized vows that the state would protect. One quotation, the title of an article, “The marriage covenant is the foundation of all our rights,” said a former slave who became a northern soldier. The point here is that this slave built his life on that civil right.

She refers to Dred Scott who tried to claim he was a citizen. He was denied that claim. Justice Tawny spent three paragraphs saying that marriage laws in the state in which Dred Scott was prevented him from marrying a white woman was a stigma that made him less than a full citizen. It was a piece of evidence that shows that he could not be a full citizen.

This is some pretty heady stuff.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: a very Republican conversation

Vaughn R. Walker, the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is a Republican. He was nominated for the bench by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

And though independently minded, Walker has taken positions in the past that show him not to be universally a gay advocate. In fact, Walker’s first nomination (by President Ronald Reagan) was held up due to controversy over a gay-related issue. Walker was representing the US Olympic Committee in their demand that the Gay Olympics (now the Gay Games) not be allowed to use “Olympics” in their name.

So when lead co-counsel Republican Ted Olson speaks to the court, it will be a very Republican conversation. This is important to recall when anti-gay activists scream about judicial activism and the bias of the court – which they have already begun to do.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger opening statements not to be taped

From the Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Monday morning temporarily blocked a federal judge in San Francisco from showing on YouTube proceedings from a trial that will determine whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court’s decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices “further consideration.” The trial is scheduled to start Monday.

Let us hope that the rest of the trial will be available to the public and not limited to those handful able to obtain a seat in the San Francisco courthouse.

Prop 8 supporters fight to keep cameras out of the courtroom

Judge Vaughn Walker has decided that the Olson-Boies case to find Proposition 8 in violation of the US Constitution will be recorded and available on YouTube. Those defending the proposition and seeking to keep California from legally recognizing same-sex marriages are desperate that this not happen.

Their public argument is that video coverage would turn the case into a “media circus” and that they would be targets of retribution. In a fiery denunciation of the judge’s decision, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher raged:

On Oct. 22, the Heritage Foundation released a report titled “The Price of Prop. 8,” which concluded that “supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.”

To deliberately and needlessly expose these people to a new wave of publicity and attacks by televising the trial is outrageous.

And indeed one of the five official sponsors of Proposition 8 (whom I’ve never heard of) has requested to be removed from the case.

On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family’s safety. In his court filing, Tam’s lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.

Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected.

But what Gallagher and Tam and the other supporters of Proposition 8 fail to mention is that they volunteered for this case. In fact, when Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown expressed no interest in defending the initiative, Tam petitioned the court requesting that he be allowed to do so.

And their concern that they be identified or targeted seems disingenuous. The proceedings are not going to occur in a secluded and private setting where the witnesses will be kept a secret. Every witness will be known and every testimony blogged about.

Tam certainly got more media attention from dropping out of the case than he would have if he’d just gone through with it.

And yet they are frantic that there be no video. The supporters of Prop 8 appealed the judge’s decision, but yesterday they were denied (SJ Merc)

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a bid by Proposition 8 supporters to block the broadcast of the upcoming trial involving a challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban, refusing to stop a plan to post the proceedings on YouTube.

In a one-paragraph order, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Proposition 8 campaign had not presented reason for “intervention by this court” in the broadcast issue.

But this wasn’t the end of their effort. They have now made an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking Justice Kennedy to block camera coverage. The Olson-Boies team has until noon on Sunday to respond (the case starts on Monday).

I do not believe Gallagher and the Prop 8 supporters’ public reasons for wishing to keep the trial from being recorded. I think that their true motivation is better understood from another argument they made. (Law.com)

Lawyers representing the Yes on 8 campaign objected to any broadcast beyond an overflow room in the San Francisco federal building, arguing that witnesses would be intimidated, or change their testimony. [emphasis added]

Change their testimony?

If their witnesses are telling the truth, wouldn’t their testimony be the same in either case?

It seems not. And here is why.

There is a record made of every word said at every trial. But this record generally is not readily accessible to the public. Words said, arguments made, all are lost to dusty volumes and forgotten.

Further, few people ever hear or read what any individual witness has to say. In a high profile trial, reporters will provide the gist of a testimony or paraphrase but the public doesn’t really hear or see

But a video recording of testimony makes their words accessible and permanent. There will be transcripts posted across the internet and for the rest of our lives there will be ready and immediate access to video of each witness making statements in support of banning gay Californians from marrying.

And clearly some of their witnesses are reluctant to testify publicly. They want to say words that the public will never hear and for which they will never be held accountable.

What is it that they don’t want the public to know? What are they reluctant to say in front of the voters who they claim to defend?

“Those who want to ban gay marriage spent millions of dollars to reach the public with misleading ads, rallies and news conferences during the campaign to pass Prop. 8. We are curious why they now fear the publicity they once craved,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Apparently transparency is their enemy, but the people deserve to know exactly what it is they have to hide.”

I suspect that regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, this case is a winner for us. This lawsuit will expose the intents, methods, and agenda of those who oppose equality. And video of their testimony will be, I believe, a very valuable tool to achieving equality.

And voter initiative battles will never be the same.

Gallagher and crew aren’t afraid that they will be targeted for hateful email or a vengeful grocery clerk squishing their tomatoes. They aren’t worried that their witness will have someone call them a bigot.

I think that what they truly fear is that what they have to say in court will look ugly and obscene when played on the news or in commercials during the next “protect marriage” battle.

Portugal parliament approves marriage equality

Portugal’s legislature has approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. (The Guardian)

Right-of-centre parties opposed the change and sought a national referendum on the issue, but their proposal was rejected and the government’s bill was passed by 125 votes to 99.

The bill now goes to a committee and back to parliament for a second vote before being presented to the President.

The conservative president, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, is thought unlikely to veto the socialist government’s bill, which won the support of all left-of-centre parties. His ratification would allow the first gay marriage ceremonies to take place in April, a month before Pope Benedict XVI is due on an official visit to Portugal.

Portugal will be the eighth nation (sixth in Europe) to recognize same sex marriages.

Parliament did not, however, pass a second bill which would allow adoption by same-sex couples.

Equality NJ is going back to court

On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey unanimously found that the constitution of that state requires that same-sex couples be provided with all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples. But by a 4 to 3 split they allowed the state to determine the method by which to provide equality.

The state legislature opted the next month for civil unions.

However, civil unions have not provided New Jersey’s same-sex couples with all of the rights, benefits and responsibilities as married couples. This was determined in a study and, more importantly, conceded during today’s debate by the opponents of marriage equity.

So Equality New Jersey is going back to court to ask the Judiciary to force the legislature to provide full marriage. (Blue Jersey)

With today’s vote in the state Senate, the New Jersey legislature defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples in New Jersey equal protection, as unanimously mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2006. That’s why we at Garden State Equality are here with our partner Lambda Legal, which has an extraordinary track record of advancing LGBT civil rights in the courts.

Now our organizations will announce major news. Our side is going back to court to win marriage equality.

Several of the senators who voted against marriage equality have pledged to “fix” civil unions. Marriage supporters doubt that separate but equal can be fixed.

If one of the four justices is convinced that only marriage can remedy the inequality, then marriage may come to New Jersey.

New Jersey votes on marriage equality

Today the full New Jersey Senate voted on a bill to provide the same legal protections, responsibilities, and recognition to same-sex couples that it offers to opposite-sex couples. As expected, the full Senate voted against marriage equality 20 – 14. To pass, the bill needed 21 votes, seven more than it received.

(for the record, Sen. Teresa Ruiz nearly brought me to tears)

What this means in practical terms is that New Jersey will not have marriage equality for the four (or eight) years of Chris Christie’s governance. Or, I suppose, until two thirds of the senate is committed to marriage and can overturn a veto.

However, we finally have a tally of those who believe in equality under the law and those who believe that our lives, our relationships, and our citizenship are inferior to their own. I’ll bring you the roll call once I know it.

It is quite likely that support for the idea of marriage in New Jersey will continue to grow. At some point I think it likely that the no vote of some Senators today will cost them their career.

Let’s try and make that sooner rather than later.

Cato Institute’s Levy calls for marriage freedom

The Cato Institute is a pro-free market, libertarian think tank which seeks to “increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.” Today the New York Daily News ran an opinion piece by Robert Levy, Cato’s chairman. He sees the unconstitutional restriction on gay couples to be the consequence of politicians inserting themselves into our lives and controlling what has historically been a private contract.

For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families. Following that tradition, marriage today should be a private arrangement, requiring minimal or no state intervention. Some religious or secular institutions would recognize gay marriages; others would not; still others would call them domestic partnerships or assign another label. Join whichever group you wish. The rights and responsibilities of partners would be governed by personally tailored contracts – consensual bargains like those that control most other interactions in a free society.
…
Yet our politicians, unwilling to privatize marriage, seem congenitally unable to extricate themselves from our most intimate relationships. One would hope, in the coming months and years, that more enlightened federal and state legislators will have the courage and decency to resist morally abhorrent and constitutionally suspect restrictions based on sexual orientation. Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans.

Oh how I wish that “libertarian minded” legislators would act in accordance with their claimed principles.

Iowa legislature not to debate marriage in 2010

Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal has ruled out debating marriage equality in 2010. (Sioux City Journal)

“I think our attitude is, if it doesn’t help balance the budget, if it doesn’t help create jobs, it can wait until another year,” Gronstal said.

This delays any possibility of Iowa residents losing basic civil rights for another four years.

If he holds to it, Gronstal’s decision delays the cumbersome process of amending the constitution, which requires the approval of two consecutive General Assemblies before going to voters. If lawmakers don’t approve this year, the issue would have to be approved by lawmakers convening in 2011 and those convening in the assembly beginning in 2013.

The earliest the issue could reach voters would be the 2014 general election.

Congressmen file amicus in support of DC’s anti-gays

Two Senators and 37 members of the House (all Republicans) have filed an amicus brief in support of anti-gay activists who are suing to put marriage equality to a vote in the District of Columbia.

Their official reason is some mumble-jumble about serving “as members of the ultimate legislative authority for the District of Columbia and the very body which delegated to the District its limited legislative power under home rule”. But their basic beef comes down to, “When we said that DC residents could make their own decisions, we didn’t mean that they could make choices that we don’t like!!”

Relatedly, last night I saw GOP Party Chairman Michael Steele, arguing on Fox that Democrats are taking away the ability of people to live their lives the way they want… and using DC’s marriage law as example. I’m paraphrasing, but it seemed like he was arguing that DC residents were losing individual freedom because they were not free to vote on what their neighbors could do. Truly, it was an example of someone totally confused about the idea of personal liberty and individual freedom.

The good news is that these congressmen are only a small percentage of the Senate and the House and are even a minority in their own party (twenty years ago you’d have nearly all of the members of both parties). This is not to say that other Republicans would necessarily support marriage equality, but perhaps that they didn’t feel the need to identify themselves with the extremist right-wing caucus of Republicans who never lose an opportunity to attack the rights, freedom, and equality of gay people.

In a way, they did us a favor. We now have a nice list of the most extreme of the extreme. And while I didn’t see any surprises on the list (perhaps our readers might), it’s nice to have a compilation of equality’s biggest opponents all in one place.

Senators:

James Inhofe (Okla.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)

Representatives:

Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio)
Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.)
Robert Aderholt (Ala.)
Todd Akin (Mo.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
J. Gresham Barrett (S.C.)
Roscoe Bartlett (Md.)
Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
John Boozman (Ark.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
John Fleming (La.)
J. Randy Forbes (Va.)
Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Scott Garrett (N.J.)
Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Louie Gohmert (Tex.)
Jeb Hensarling (Tex.)
Wally Herger (Calif.)
Walter Jones (N.C.)
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Steve King (Iowa)
Jack Kingston (Ga.)
John Kline (Minn.)
Doug Lamborn (Colo.)
Robert Latta (Ohio)
Don Manzullo (Ill.)
Michael McCaul (Tex.)
Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.)
Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.)
Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Jerry Moran (Kan.)
Randy Neugebauer (Tex.)
Mike Pence (Ind.)
Joe Pitts (Pa.)
Mark Souder (Ind.)
Todd Tiahrt (Kan.)

Feel free to walk precincts, call volunteers, work get-out-the-vote, or contribute to the campaigns of their primary and general opponents as much as possible.

Olson/Boies Prop 8 trial to be recorded and available

On January 11, Ted Olson and David Boies will begin their case against Proposition 8, arguing that it runs contrary to the US Constitution. In a strange turn of events, the case will be recorded but not made available for live media coverage. (SJ Merc)

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release on YouTube, but rejected a bid by media organizations to televise the proceedings themselves for live broadcast.

Walker, by approving some broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial, became the first federal judge in the West to make use of an experimental program put in place recently by the 9th Circuit Judicial Council, which sets policy for federal courts in nine states, including California.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had argued against any public presentation of the trial, saying that their witnesses were reluctant to testify if their testimony was made available to public scrutiny.

They used one of the anti-gay community’s favorite arguments: fear of retaliation. Personally, I believe that their objection is based in fear of exposure. I suspect that the purposes and beliefs of the funders, organizers, and administrators of Proposition 8 are not aligned with the public, not even the majority of those who voted for the proposition.

Portugal marriage vote on Friday?

The Vancouver Sun is reporting:

Catholic Portugal, traditionally one of Europe’s most socially conservative countries, is expected to approve the legalization of gay marriage on Friday with a minimum of fuss.

With the governing Socialists and other left-wing parties enjoying a strong majority, the new law is likely to sail through the first reading debate and gain final approval before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, due in Portugal in May.
…
Deputies are also expected on Friday to vote two other bills submitted by the Green party, the Left Bloc and others which would grant gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt children.

If the gay marriage proposals do pass through parliament, they will the have to go through a parliamentary commission before coming back for the final approval.

As yet, I’ve not seen corroborating sources about a Friday vote. But we’ll keep our eyes on this.

NJ Senate to vote on marriage equality on Thursday

NBC is reporting:

There will in fact be a vote on gay marriage in the lame duck session of the New Jersey state legislature on Thursday, NBCNewYork.com has learned.

“We’re gonna post the bill and see what happens,” Senate President Dick Codey told us.

Codey is skeptical that it can pass. But even a failed vote will tell us which legislators believe that our relationships, our lives, and our citizenship are inferior to their own.